Portal talk:English law

against law or just against specific laws where unattributed?

I'm preparing to edit an article on a certain practice in England and places under English legal influence. I'm not a lawyer. The practice, which existed for some number of centuries until about a hundred years ago, was facially unlawful but usually the law was not enforced, much of the general local lower-income public believing the practice to be lawful and often receiving legal advice on how to proceed and then proceeding publicly. Some judges and constables thought otherwise, but legal enforcement was rare in most years.

U.S. law has a principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, so that a person never convicted of anything has therefore never violated a criminal law and whatever they have done must therefore have been lawful. The double jeopardy rule also applies; e.g., if a person is indicted and tried for murder and is found guilty of a lesser offense and chooses not to appeal or exhausts all direct appeals and remains guilty of the lesser offense, that person is thereafter generally free to confess that they committed the acts constituting the greater offense without risking a new indictment, because the rule against double jeopardy bars their being found guilty of the greater offense and therefore they could not have violated the greater law even if they violated a greater statute. U.S. law largely is based on English common law as it stood in 1789 (or sooner or later) and as subsequently amended by the U.S.

The complication that occurs to me is what happens if a jury cannot be found that will convict on a given set of facts. A statute may proscribe certain conduct but it may be nearly impossible to empanel a jury that agrees that the specified conduct justifies a finding of guilt. It may be unlawful for a jury to refuse to convict, i.e., to practice jury nullification, and a defense lawyer may be forbidden by a judge from inviting jury nullification, but a jury or an individual juror will not be punished for acquittal and does not have to offer reasoning for a decision even if asked.

If English law and law in related places (e.g., colonies) is like what I've described, is it accurate to describe a practice that juries apparently did not find was ground for guilt as unlawful or should the article in Wikipedia limit itself to a narrower judgment, such as that the practice violated statute and that named persons (e.g., known scholars) said the practice was generally unlawful (but only with attribution)?

I ask because, while I rely on sourcing, this is deeper than sources generally discuss and we need to avoid overclaiming what was meant by a source's statement. My inclination is to narrow claims of unlawfulness (except those attributed to jurists, lawyers, et al.) to being against, say, statute or a common law precedent rather than law generally.

I ask at this portal even though not seen often because there does not seem to be a WikiProject specific enough, the Help Desk is not for this kind of question, and the reference desk is not specific enough in its focus.

Thoughts? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut notices

In regard to this edit, of course, editor Bencherlite, you can maintain the shortcut notice at the TOP if you wish; however, please don't continue to accept that all pages with shortcuts to the page have notices at the TOP of the page. One page that does not is the main Wikipedia Help page featured on all pages usually in the left column. Rather than "spoil" the beautifully maintained page with shortcut notices at the TOP, many pages in Portal namespace have also opted to show their shortcut notices at the BOTTOM, where other contributors will still find them, and they are in a more subtle part of the page. If there are other involved editors who help to maintain this Portal, you may want to consult with them on this issue. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 16:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware of portals regularly having shortcut notices at the bottom of the page - unless of course you are referring to the portals where you have made that change and nobody has reverted you (which is probably an indication of how inactive and unwatched many of the portals are!) Looking at a number of project pages from my watchlist and elsewhere - WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:HD, WP:ITNC, WT:DYK, WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:TFAR, WP:U, WP:V, WP:NFC, WP:CSD, and I could go on - all of them have the shortcut box at the top, because then it's immediately visible. People can then see it and remember the shortcut for the next time they want the page, rather than have to scroll all the way to the bottom. Help:Contents is unusual in that respect. I'd also refer you to Wikipedia:Shortcut, which says "Small link boxes, listing the names of the page's shortcuts, appear at the top of many pages, especially those on policies and guidelines." (emphasis added) Bencherlite^Talk 17:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's true that I have added shortcuts that already existed but were not in the notice. It's also true that I have converted a few shortcut notices from TOP to the BOTTOM of the Portal page. But I got the idea from a Portal page that already had the shortcut notice at the bottom. After noticing several like that (the first one I came across I felt as you do and put the notice at the TOP, but was almost immediately reverted – so much for your assumption that these pages are not watched), I did start to change a few like I did with this portal, and you are the first to dislike the change. Different strokes. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 17:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

PS. The project pages have a very different format. Portal pages are more colorful to invite the readers to keep reading. This is the first portal page (presently working on the P:E's and F's, so I've been to more than 200 Portal pages) that depicted the shortcut notice outside the first subpage. The rest I've seen were inside that first section. The way it is now, in my opinion, detracts from the look of the Portal page.

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. I'm going to go ahead and close this since there is consensus to move per lack of additional input. At the time of this close, the redirects from Portal:Law of England and Wales and its subages still exist due to incoming links (there are hundreds of incoming links). Once those incoming links are resolved, the redirects can be deleted. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Portal:Law of England and Wales → Portal:English law – The proposed name aligns the portal with that of its article, English law. NOTE TO CLOSER: If the Portal is moved, please ensure the move is done by someone with the appropriate permissions to move all of the subpages without leaving redirects, and then ensure all resulting redlinks in the portal are fixed; please ping me if you need help with that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: I moved it including all sub-pages and portal got broken.  samee  converse  16:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

...Side note, I think the portal "broke" in the instance above because only 100 of the 150 subpages were moved. There's a way to move more than 100 without issue, but the parent page has to be moved back and forth a few times to gather up to 100 subpages each time. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it... and may revert myself if I mess up. I mean, I have to check for incoming links of 151 red linked pages... Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

...Actually, I think Samee did one of the big steps: temporarily creating redirects from the new titles when they reverted their moves. This makes it easier to link the currently-existing redirects until all the links to the current pages are changed... Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• ...Okay, I give up thanks to Template:WikiProject Law. In that template, there is a parameter named EW= in its transclusion of Template:WikiProject Law/portalbox that forces a link to Portal:Law of England and Wales when activated via "yes", and I cannot figure out how to update/change that to Portal:English law. After several blundered moves by myself (since I give up trying to resolve this), the only change I ended up making (besides a couple of hundred of redirect artifacts I moved to my userspace just to get them out of the way) was suppressing the redirect Portal:English law and all of its subpages. Anyways, in a nutshell, at minimum, Template:WikiProject Law needs to be updated as I stated before this move is performed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ...I may have this figured out now. Doing edits again... Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • At this point, I'm waiting for the pages which transclude templates that included link(s) to Portal:Law of England and Wales (which I changed to Portal:English law) to purge so that the true amount of incoming links displays. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.